FIRST: When I renounced my US citizenship in 1984, I had to sign approximately a dozen different documents all stating that I was not acting under duress. Duress annuls any agreement and all criminal intent. People have committed multiple murders -- even torture murders -- and were never charged with any offense, because of the element of clear and obvious duress.

SECOND: I have translated hundreds of contracts -- probably about a thousand of them -- and I have never seen a contract without an exercise date or an expiration date.

Some contracts must be exercised within a certain period of time, or they lapse; or they enter into effect upon a certain date and lapse on a certain date. Some are valid until cancelled by either party, with advance notice; others are tacitly renewable upon the expiration date unless cancelled by either party, with advance notice under some circumstances, or without advance notice, under other circumstances. No contract is for perpetuity.
It is difficult (in fact, impossible) to imagine a contract in which one party of the two -- and only one -- is bound to fulfil, without limit in time, without any consideration in return, and without the possibility of cancellation. Any contract can be cancelled.

Even if you sign a 99-year lease, there is still the possibility of cancellation, for example, violation of contract by the other party, opening of insolvency proceedings by or against the other party, or simply advance notice, with payment of compensation.

THIRD: Now, to me, the idea of a "parenting agreement" between two people who simply shacked up for 6 months is a legal and logical absurdity. The mother had custody; that gives her the right to make the decisions after that. They were never even married!
If this Nebbish character wanted to be a "parent", why didn't he marry the mother, support her properly, treat her with respect, and start acting like a parent?

FOURTH: Infant circumcision is almost always performed immediately after birth. So for four years -- FOUR YEARS -- this disgusting kike Dennis Nebbish or whatever his name is, makes no effort to enforce the agreement! He only showed any interest in having the circumcision when he discovered that the mother opposed it!

FIFTH: If the father can enforce an agreement like that, after FOUR YEARS, why can't he enforce it at fourteen years, or seventeen years, or twenty-one, or forty, or at any other time?

SIXTH: If I sold a car to a 4-year old boy and tried to collect the money from his parents, I would be told that the agreement was invalid, as the other contracting party (the child) was a minor, below the age of consent.

SEVENTH: If my neighbour sells his cousin a car, can he collect the money from me? Of course, not, I'm not a party to the agreement.

In other words, how does a third party become bound by an agreement between two other people, years later, to which he never consented, and which he now strongly resists? An agreement the fulfilment of which was never even demanded by either party, although infant circumcision is normally performed on the eighth day (at least under Jewish law), but in all cases very soon after birth.

EIGHT: In law, there is a doctrine known as estoppel, or laches, which prohibits a party from asserting certain claims or actions on the grounds that they are contradicted by his own previous actions.

For example, there was a derelict island in the middle of a river forming the border between Georgia and South Carolina. Georgia never did anything with it. The state of South Carolina filled in the channel between the river bank and the island, connected it to the mainland, built a road to it, allowed private South Carolina citizens to build very valuable properties on it, upon which the state of South Carolina merrily collected taxes for 20 years! All this time, the state of Georgia stood by and did nothing! Then, when some sleepy hillbilly in the Georgia state legislature finally woke up to the fact that the property had become highly valuable, they suddenly asserted title to it! The claim was declared invalid on the grounds of estoppel.

It seems to me that something very similar is going on in this case: if the father had a right to demand circumcision, he should have done so during the child's infancy. Failure to do so then should logically bar any claim to do so now.

NINTH: There are other contradictions. If I sell the child a car, I will be told he is below the age of consent. He cannot legally contract, vote, smoke, drink, buy alcohol or tobacco, engage in sexual activity or a thousand other things, yet it is implied that he is bound by a contract to which he never consented; in other words, it is suddenly now implied that he did consent -- to circumcision.

Then, we are told that no, his consent would have been invalid -- you're quite right there -- but the parent can consent on his behalf! But Heather was the parent! She had full custody for 4 years. She said no. Now, 4 years later, we are told that she has no rights in the matter?

TENTH: If I sold the mother a car, and she defaulted on the loan, could I collect the money from the child?
Let's assume the child has money of his own, held in a bank account in his own name, left to him by some wealthy relative (the "money" in this case being his foreskin, the "bank account" in this case being his body, and the "wealthy relative" being, of course, God).
Could I collect the money from the child to pay for the car purchased by the mother? Of course not. I would be told to repossess the car from the mother and sue her for the balance, if any, accepting payment in instalments from the mother.

The remedy for failure to fulfil a contract under civil law is to sue the other party for damages -- not seize property belonging to some third party who is not a party to the contract.

This may be a false analogy, but it seems to me that they are treating this case as if it were the bankruptcy of a slave plantation in which the only available asset is a single remaining slave, who happens to be a child.
Except that:
a) slavery in America was abolished a long time ago; and
b) under American slavery, the mutilation of slaves was against the law.

Let's see... wasn't there some Shakespeare play where some kike demanded a pound of flesh pursuant to some silly agreement?
Of course, something like that could never really happen! Silly! "Anti-Semitic literature"!
--

CONCLUSION:

It might furthermore be noted that parents and legal guardians have an AFFIRMATIVE DUTY UNDER CRIMINAL LAW to protect all children in their charge from harm and neglect.
Heather Hironimus had sole custody and was thus IMPRISONED by a CIVIL court judge for performing what was simply her LEGAL DUTY under CRIMINAL LAW.

And what did Heather Hironimus get in return for signing that illegal "consent" form, demanded by some criminal judge in violation of all clear law on consent, and crammed down her throat by some back-stabbing "defense" attorney? (He did everything but twist her arm behind her back, you can almost see it).

She didn't get custody; she lost her child. She lost her rights. Of course, it's easy to be brave when it's not your head on the chopping block, but to me, she would have been far better off to stay in jail. The longer she stayed there, the bigger the scandal.
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. It took them NINE NIGHTS to break her spirit. After fighting courageously for many months, she cracked. Every human being has a breaking point.

And to think that it could all have been avoided simply by leaving the state about a year ago.

My advice to her now would be to find some super-shyster law firm that specialises in
"no-win/no fee" cases, and sue everybody in sight for about 20 million dollars.
Of course, the lawyers will steal all the money (or about 3/4), but the point is to make them pay.
Money is all they care about. Money is their God. Make them suffer. No pecuniary damages can compensate for the psychological damage, the "pain and suffering", that has already been inflicted -- and it won't stop there .

C.P.
31 October 2015

And Judas went out and hanged himself.... Go thou and do likewise, you bastard.